Phone Companies Object to House Pretexting Bill
Phone and wireless industries Fri. demanded clarification of a House Commerce Committee pretexting bill (HR-936) to make sure marketing isn’t impeded. Ranking Member Barton (R-Tex.) said he had trouble understanding the industries’ objection, but said the committee might be able to address their concern.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
“For our industry alone, it [legislation would be a do- not-call with consumers having to opt in,” USTelecom Pres. Walter McCormick said: “This opt-in requirements has to do with forcing a customer to say you may contact us.” The bill would force phone companies to restrict marketing without addressing “any identified problem of fraudulent access to phone records,” he said. Of particular concern, McCormick said: impact on of hiring 3rd party contractors for marketing.
An anti-pretexting law enacted last year has dried up the market for illegal pretexting services, CTIA said. “The positive effect of the legislation cannot be overstated,” said CTIA Pres. Steve Largent. Wireless carriers enhance the law’s effect with tighter security and training, he said. CTIA shares USTelecom’s concern that as written the bill would make carriers get specific customer consent before they could share data with affiliates, a potential burden.
FTC officials noted evidence of a pretexting decline but still want a law to wipe out the practice, they said. “Often, monetary penalties can be the most effective civil remedy in privacy-related actions,” said Lydia Parnes, dir.- FTC Consumer Protection Bureau. Recent undercover work has shown that some sites that once sold the data are less willing to do so, she said, crediting tougher enforcement.
The FCC needs by next week to finish a final rule in its Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) rulemaking, Telecom Subcommittee Chmn. Markey (D-Mass.) said: “We're having all 5 commissioners up here and we certainly hope the CPNI order will be completed by then and done well by then.” In prepared testimony, FCC Wireline Bureau Chief Thomas Navin said the agency is working on the order, but he didn’t provide a timeline for its delivery. The Commerce Committee is in the final stages of work on the bill, said Rep. DeGette (D-Colo.)
The bill’s main sticking point is the consumer “opt-in” provision, critical for guarding consumer privacy, said Marc Rotenberg, pres.-Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC). Consumers should control their information, he told lawmakers. He complained about FCC laggardliness in issuing CPNI rules, saying the delay strengthens the case for a federal law. “I am here before you today to urge that the FCC take action on the petition,” he said. “It’s vital to act on the legislation.”
Some lawmakers said they sympathize with industry. Rep. Boucher (D-Va.) warned the committee to “carefully evaluate exemptions” in the bill and to heed industry representatives to make sure contracting out provisions don’t cause more harm than good. McCormick said one of the bill’s requirements to create an audit trail could cost an estimated $12-$64 per line, “which would clearly be a burden.”